Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third day of Christmas, our MPs sent to me – a general

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third day of Christmas, our MPs sent to me – a general election?

Poldark is not a documentary. As with many a period drama, it captures in the mirror as much of a picture of the era in which the adaptation was made as that in which it’s set. That’s not just true of the characters and their actions but of the world around them. To take one example, the ease and comfort with which they appear to nip up the 280 miles or so to London from Cornwall (or back) is more in keeping with taking the GWR than being cramped into a stagecoach for perhaps five days across dusty, rutted and/or muddy roads.

Comments

I said that I was not sure about the last part because there is likely to be more risk of MPs of other parties being physically unable to attend than Tories who still largely come from the south of England.

Am I not also right in thinking that May becomes even more vulnerable if her MV passes as she loses the DUP for good? And its not like it really helps her that much because she still has to pass other legislation. A tactical abstention by Labour followed by a VONC looks the most likely way to trigger a GE, albeit it is getting to the point you wonder if May could win the MV even if Labour did abstain.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

“Parliament was cowed by the referendum, and for too long supine. We are a representative democracy and the sovereign parliament has the right to accept or reject Brexit as it sees fit. The ultimate proof that they understand their true role will be that they assert their pre-eminence by...

Whilst we may end up with a GE it is extremely difficult to see what purpose it would serve or how it would resolve anything. Both main parties would almost certainly not be standing on a manifesto with a clear Brexit policy, and a huge number of MPs would anyway make it clear they don’t endorse whatever supposed form of words their party manifestos put forward. If anything, all it would do is rule out once and for all the only workable Brexit option on the table (ie the current deal with the EU). Which would put us in an even worse position than we are now, stuck between Remain (probably not in either party’s manifesto) or a hard place.

Probably the best outcome from the deal being voted down would be a one year extension of Article 50, although that would require the unanimous agreement of the EU, and would still need someone to come up with a workable way forward. At least we would have a bit of breathing space. Until the next time.

Another excellent article. I agree with David that kicking the can down the road looks much the most likely option. We've seen multiple times that it's May's modus operandi, and in this case it has something to be said for it - she probably would get some modest tweaks, MPs really would prefer not to be freeting over it during Christmas, and the "my deal or doom" threat will look more convincing with each day that passes.

There is a Labour case for not trying the VONC instantly, I think - possibly better to strike when she comes back with trivial changes than when the illusory cake is waiting in Brussels for her to collect.

But I do think a 2019 election is now odds on. Even if May gets her deal, confidence in her is shot. I'd anticipate a leadershiup election in spring and the new leader banking on a honeymood effect - "let me steer you through difficult times" etc. It's actually pretty much the only card the Tories have left, but it's not a bad one.

Another excellent article. I agree with David that kicking the can down the road looks much the most likely option. We've seen multiple times that it's May's modus operandi, and in this case it has something to be said for it - she probably would get some modest tweaks, MPs really would prefer not to be freeting over it during Christmas, and the "my deal or doom" threat will look more convincing with each day that passes.

There is a Labour case for not trying the VONC instantly, I think - possibly better to strike when she comes back with trivial changes than when the illusory cake is waiting in Brussels for her to collect.

But I do think a 2019 election is now odds on. Even if May gets her deal, confidence in her is shot. I'd anticipate a leadershiup election in spring and the new leader banking on a honeymood effect - "let me steer you through difficult times" etc. It's actually pretty much the only card the Tories have left, but it's not a bad one.

“Difficult times”? It would be akin to Michael Caine passing on the leadership in the closing titles of the Italian job.

Polling still shows May as best PM, and the deal as the best one on offer. Don’t see why a new leader should get any sort of honeymoon.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

BTW, how easy is it to repeal the FTPA? Could it be done via a one line bill?

No. The FTPA took away Royal Prerogative and a key constitutional principle is prerogative power can't be added to. So a simple repeal to the Status Quo Ante won't work. You could have a simple bill with a replacement scheme but not a one line repeal. The other issue is Salisbury wouldn't apply and there would be no time to use the Parliament Act either meaning the Lords would have an absolute veto over the repeal bill.

Regardless a hung parliament would be the last sort to repeal FTPA. FTPA removes the executive's nuclear option re the legislature, dissolution, and makes VoNC less nuclear and thus more useable. Both if these features shift power from the executive to the legislature. There is no way thus particular HoC is going to give up that sway.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

The question is how much the EU is willing to move on the backstop. Precious little, I’d bet.

If there was movement to be had on the backstop, I think we’d have seen it now. After all, it was the key remaining part of the negotiations back in Autumn. Any MP trying to convince themselves that the problem was that May wasn’t negotiating the backstop hard enough are going to meet reality soon, I think. She clearly did try and push back on it strongly. She didn’t get any further than the UK-wide solution.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

The arguments that cosmetic tweaks will make a difference relies on the assumption that there are large number of MPs looking for a way off the high horse they’ve jumped upon. There’s little evidence of that, in fact the horse seems to be getting more crowded every day.

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

Disagree, it was always obvious they were going to call whatever she came up with a betrayal. If it hadn't been the backstop it would have been something else.

The only way they'll vote for something is:1) It doesn't require them to climb down a hill they've already marched up2) At the point where they decide whether to climb up the hill, they think the alternative is less brexitty.

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

Disagree, it was always obvious they were going to call whatever she came up with a betrayal. If it hadn't been the backstop it would have been something else.

The only way they'll vote for something is:1) It doesn't require them to climb down a hill they've already marched up2) At the point where they decide whether to climb up the hill, they think the alternative is less brexitty.

I think that’s true for about 20-25 MPs, it isn’t for 100+. Peer pressure, momentum (small m), WhatsApp and spin have done the rest.

I agree she can’t win over all her MPs but she should be able to get 290 votes. The rest depends on the DUP and how some of the Labour backbenches behave.

Great article, and I agree that can kicking has to be the May plan because thats all she has left. However I would expect the EU to restate that there is no further negotiation available thus negating the "I'll go back to Brussels" line.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

The question is how much the EU is willing to move on the backstop. Precious little, I’d bet.

If there was movement to be had on the backstop, I think we’d have seen it now. After all, it was the key remaining part of the negotiations back in Autumn. Any MP trying to convince themselves that the problem was that May wasn’t negotiating the backstop hard enough are going to meet reality soon, I think. She clearly did try and push back on it strongly. She didn’t get any further than the UK-wide solution.

I think the EU realises the backstop was a mistake, and has backed both itself and the UK into a corner.

I think they’d be willing to look for practical qualifications on this. As, indeed, they already have.

The question remains what powerful but symbolic thing is going to happen to give MPs psychological permission to vote through the deal on a second or subsequent attempt ?

Powerful because this is an unholy mess, symbolic because the deal isn't going to change very much and psychological because a good number of MPs are going to need a narrative to change the biggest vote of their lives within a matter of days/weeks.

I think the answer is Theresa May's resignation. She announces she's going in January as soon as a successor is in place. The second vote then passes under her premiership making her still the Moses of for Brexit but not the Joshua. It's a reasonable deal. She gets her legacy. MPs get their sacrificial lamb.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

The arguments that cosmetic tweaks will make a difference relies on the assumption that there are large number of MPs looking for a way off the high horse they’ve jumped upon. There’s little evidence of that, in fact the horse seems to be getting more crowded every day.

MPs are fickle. If a number of them jump the other way they’ll do so in a big group for safety.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

Are there several trusted Brexiteers any more?

Stephen Barclay and Kwasi Kwarteng etc. If I were they I’d ignore Boris and try and get both Raab and Rees-Mogg on board through private briefings and 1:1s.

The question remains what powerful but symbolic thing is going to happen to give MPs psychological permission to vote through the deal on a second or subsequent attempt ?

Powerful because this is an unholy mess, symbolic because the deal isn't going to change very much and psychological because a good number of MPs are going to need a narrative to change the biggest vote of their lives within a matter of days/weeks.

I think the answer is Theresa May's resignation. She announces she's going in January as soon as a successor is in place. The second vote then passes under her premiership making her still the Moses of for Brexit but not the Joshua. It's a reasonable deal. She gets her legacy. MPs get their sacrificial lamb.

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

Disagree, it was always obvious they were going to call whatever she came up with a betrayal. If it hadn't been the backstop it would have been something else.

The only way they'll vote for something is:1) It doesn't require them to climb down a hill they've already marched up2) At the point where they decide whether to climb up the hill, they think the alternative is less brexitty.

I think that’s true for about 20-25 MPs, it isn’t for 100+. Peer pressure, momentum (small m), WhatsApp and spin have done the rest.

I agree she can’t win over all her MPs but she should be able to get 290 votes. The rest depends on the DUP and how some of the Labour backbenches behave.

Reading Priti Patels constituency letter, it's 'pretty' clear that wild horses wouldn't drag her through the lobby in support of the deal. Phrase and sentences such as 'chained to the EU', 'While the EU has secured everything it wants with firm legal guarantees, the UK has nothing but platitudes.' and 'prevents us from making new trade deals with the rest of the world. ' abound.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

The question is how much the EU is willing to move on the backstop. Precious little, I’d bet.

If there was movement to be had on the backstop, I think we’d have seen it now. After all, it was the key remaining part of the negotiations back in Autumn. Any MP trying to convince themselves that the problem was that May wasn’t negotiating the backstop hard enough are going to meet reality soon, I think. She clearly did try and push back on it strongly. She didn’t get any further than the UK-wide solution.

I think the EU realises the backstop was a mistake, and has backed both itself and the UK into a corner.

I think they’d be willing to look for practical qualifications on this. As, indeed, they already have.

Surely the only thing they can do that gets this through the HoC (other than cancel the backstop altogether) is allow the right to unilaterally withdraw. Which they will never do.

Another suggestion which I think was touted on a previous thread was give the people of Northern Ireland the right to cancel the backstop via a public vote if it is challenged. However under the various parties obligations to the people’s of the island of Ireland it is hard to imagine how you could impose that on the Republic unless there is also a similar vote from south of the border - ie both sides have to agree. Which obviously removes the unilateral element and gives voters in the republic control over the UKs internal policies.

The question remains what powerful but symbolic thing is going to happen to give MPs psychological permission to vote through the deal on a second or subsequent attempt ?

Powerful because this is an unholy mess, symbolic because the deal isn't going to change very much and psychological because a good number of MPs are going to need a narrative to change the biggest vote of their lives within a matter of days/weeks.

I think the answer is Theresa May's resignation. She announces she's going in January as soon as a successor is in place. The second vote then passes under her premiership making her still the Moses of for Brexit but not the Joshua. It's a reasonable deal. She gets her legacy. MPs get their sacrificial lamb.

And the DUP no confidences the government?

Perhaps but perhaps not. They'd have May's scalp and a new PM would be on the way. Why VoNC a government that was already dead when you could keep that powder dry for a new shinny PM in 6 weeks time ?

This all reminds me of 1974, which was the year that triggered my lifelong political interest. I was barely at secondary school but remember the intensive media coverage and speculation day after day, and the fevered working through the parliamentary arithmetic to see whether the government would win or lose, with some votes on a knifeedge and MPs carried from hospital through the lobbies on trolleys. And of course a year that saw two GEs.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

I also wonder if the key vote now is the Benn amendment discussed last night. If that is passed then May's options become even more limited. It seemed to me to be wishing for something not in Parliament's gift, namely no no deal Brexit in the event that the MV is lost. How does the House come to discuss the deal again in that scenario?

May’s problems (besides the sheer fanaticism and egoism of MPs) is twofold:

(1) The backstop(2) The fact the WA got published several days before the political declaration, and MPs decided what they thought of the latter based on the former

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

Are there several trusted Brexiteers any more?

Stephen Barclay and Kwasi Kwarteng etc. If I were they I’d ignore Boris and try and get both Raab and Rees-Mogg on board through private briefings and 1:1s.

This all reminds me of 1974, which was the year that triggered my lifelong political interest. I was barely at secondary school but remember the intensive media coverage and speculation day after day, and the fevered working through the parliamentary arithmetic to see whether the government would win or lose, with some votes on a knifeedge and MPs carried from hospital through the lobbies on trolleys. And of course a year that saw two GEs.

Could Corbyn be the first Leader of the Opposition since Balfour to lose three consecutive general elections - by the end of next year?

The question remains what powerful but symbolic thing is going to happen to give MPs psychological permission to vote through the deal on a second or subsequent attempt ?

Powerful because this is an unholy mess, symbolic because the deal isn't going to change very much and psychological because a good number of MPs are going to need a narrative to change the biggest vote of their lives within a matter of days/weeks.

I think the answer is Theresa May's resignation. She announces she's going in January as soon as a successor is in place. The second vote then passes under her premiership making her still the Moses of for Brexit but not the Joshua. It's a reasonable deal. She gets her legacy. MPs get their sacrificial lamb.

And the DUP no confidences the government?

Perhaps but perhaps not. They'd have May's scalp and a new PM would be on the way. Why VoNC a government that was already dead when you could keep that powder dry for a new shinny PM in 6 weeks time ?

The question remains what powerful but symbolic thing is going to happen to give MPs psychological permission to vote through the deal on a second or subsequent attempt ?

Powerful because this is an unholy mess, symbolic because the deal isn't going to change very much and psychological because a good number of MPs are going to need a narrative to change the biggest vote of their lives within a matter of days/weeks.

I think the answer is Theresa May's resignation. She announces she's going in January as soon as a successor is in place. The second vote then passes under her premiership making her still the Moses of for Brexit but not the Joshua. It's a reasonable deal. She gets her legacy. MPs get their sacrificial lamb.

Problem is the reasons why MPs are voting against the deal isn't because of May it's because of the deal. May going isn't enough for Priti Patel and others to back down as its the agreement itself they cannot stand.

Eight random residents of Bedford on R4 now; why Bedford of all places?

Either because Bedford is known as the hometown of the great political sage of our time. Or because the editor can chalk up a tick in the “out of London” box without paying overtime. See also efforts by economics and political correspondents to be ‘of the people’ by wearing hard hats on industrial estates in Slough.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

The question is how much the EU is willing to move on the backstop. Precious little, I’d bet.

If there was movement to be had on the backstop, I think we’d have seen it now. After all, it was the key remaining part of the negotiations back in Autumn. Any MP trying to convince themselves that the problem was that May wasn’t negotiating the backstop hard enough are going to meet reality soon, I think. She clearly did try and push back on it strongly. She didn’t get any further than the UK-wide solution.

I think the EU realises the backstop was a mistake, and has backed both itself and the UK into a corner.

I think they’d be willing to look for practical qualifications on this. As, indeed, they already have.

Surely the only thing they can do that gets this through the HoC (other than cancel the backstop altogether) is allow the right to unilaterally withdraw. Which they will never do.

Another suggestion which I think was touted on a previous thread was give the people of Northern Ireland the right to cancel the backstop via a public vote if it is challenged. However under the various parties obligations to the people’s of the island of Ireland it is hard to imagine how you could impose that on the Republic unless there is also a similar vote from south of the border - ie both sides have to agree. Which obviously removes the unilateral element and gives voters in the republic control over the UKs internal policies.

Tis a very fine mess.

Labour's policy is to make the backstop (aka customs union) permanent. The cheek of them yesterday describing the Legal advice that the backstop potentially trapped the UK in an endless cycle of talks as "the central flaw in May's deal" was something to behold.

There really is no solution to the impasse outside of another referendum... which May has staked her premiership on not holding.

There is.

It's just that nobody sane actually wants a crashout.

Hence an extension of A50 looks unavoidable, since neither government nor the clear majority of Parliament wants no deal, and a significantly new deal isn't going to appear overnight, if at all (some Norway variant is the most likely). The EU will need a good reason to agree this; the UK being in a mess isn't by itself enough. This points to either a change of PM or a referendum.

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

Potentially the market reaction on Wednesday and the overnight currency markets. However you’d suggest some sort of pricing-in at this point given how inevitable rejection looks.

Thoughts on saving the deal. These are horrible, but might just do it:

1) Fix an end date when the trade talks should conclude by. If 7 years is average, your want shorter, say something like March 2023.2) Commit the UK to full managed no deal investment, including developing a new solution for fhe ttechnical Irish border. This, I guess, would be in the couple of tens of billions range. UK also to contribute to the cost in neighbouring countries especially Ireland, again another couple of tens of billions.3) A summit in, say, summer 2023 to either sign off the deal or sign off the actions for managed no deal, including a commitment to a minimum regulatory border with a go live date not more than 2 years in the future..4) If the deal is ready, signed off and implementable earlier, spending on 2) could cease.5) The current extension and backstop would survive, but would now be further bounded by the above.

Effectively, what I am musing here is putting the Trade Talks under A50 conditions, with No Deal threats continuing, but the development of the No Deal option fully funded by the UK.

Politics would continue much as now for the next 5 years.

And a variant on yesterday's ERG amendment would be in place.

And I'm wondering if something like this, that costs another £40bn, doesn't exclude No Deal and keeps us under A50 deadline pressure, might be the best outcome. This is what we are reduced to.

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

Potentially the market reaction on Wednesday and the overnight currency markets. However you’d suggest some sort of pricing-in at this point given how inevitable rejection looks.

But as the market reaction is already baked in (for No Deal if I'm being honest) how do you create the crisis that allows MPs to change their vote. Remember that the issues MPs are quote are fundamental ones within the agreement and the EU won't be changing the core bits of that as that would require further agreement by the EU leaders..

It's why I'm betting on a temporary PM while the Tory's hold a leadership election and article 50 being revoked - there is no other way out at the moment...

Can kicking depends on the EU certainly and Labour too, if any Conservative or DUP MPs aren't on board. They will need to know what the objective is and have a reason to agree with it.Edit. What I mean is that the EU would have to understand the extra time is needed to get MPs on board with the WA, while Conservative MPs are expecting changes to the WA. Meanwhile Labour wants political advantage for them.

Thoughts on saving the deal. These are horrible, but might just do it:

1) Fix an end date when the trade talks should conclude by. If 7 years is average, your want shorter, say something like March 2023.2) Commit the UK to full managed no deal investment, including developing a new solution for fhe ttechnical Irish border. This, I guess, would be in the couple of tens of billions range. UK also to contribute to the cost in neighbouring countries especially Ireland, again another couple of tens of billions.3) A summit in, say, summer 2023 to either sign off the deal or sign off the actions for managed no deal, including a commitment to a minimum regulatory border with a go live date not more than 2 years in the future..4) If the deal is ready, signed off and implementable earlier, spending on 2) could cease.5) The current extension and backstop would survive, but would now be further bounded by the above.

Effectively, what I am musing here is putting the Trade Talks under A50 conditions, with No Deal threats continuing, but the development of the No Deal option fully funded by the UK.

Politics would continue much as now for the next 5 years.

And a variant on yesterday's ERG amendment would be in place.

And I'm wondering if something like this, that costs another £40bn, doesn't exclude No Deal and keeps us under A50 deadline pressure, might be the best outcome. This is what we are reduced to.

What you highlight is that this WA is just the appetiser, with the main course of the leaving deal not even chosen yet. Much of your post is aimed at solving the next, bigger problem, and makes the current predicament more complicated rather than less.

You're right that in a negotiating impasse a useful strategy is to widen the discussion to see if one or other party is willing to trade their agreement against concessions elsewhere. But our politicians are struggling to make sense of what they already have on their plate and I don't see anyone up for making a fist of an even bigger challenge?

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

Potentially the market reaction on Wednesday and the overnight currency markets. However you’d suggest some sort of pricing-in at this point given how inevitable rejection looks.

If the market has somehow "priced in" the consequences of the deal being rejected, is there any way it could communicate it to the rest of us? Interpretation of rejection ranges from No deal, end of May as PM, fall of Conservative Govt, GE, Referendum (with any number of different options), Remain. Even, pause for thought and voting through the deal a few weeks later.

It literally could mean anything. It's possible that the market could even react positively in the aftermath of the vote, because it may bring some clarity into what happens next. And what the markets like is clarity/certainty.

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

Potentially the market reaction on Wednesday and the overnight currency markets. However you’d suggest some sort of pricing-in at this point given how inevitable rejection looks.

If the market has somehow "priced in" the consequences of the deal being rejected, is there any way it could communicate it to the rest of us? Interpretation of rejection ranges from No deal, end of May as PM, fall of Conservative Govt, GE, Referendum (with any number of different options), Remain. Even, pause for thought and voting through the deal a few weeks later.

It literally could mean anything. It's possible that the market could even react positively in the aftermath of the vote, because it may bring some clarity into what happens next. And what the markets like is clarity/certainty.

The £ is already well down and, as I have suggested before, probably offers a medium term buying opportunity. Any sort of certainty about our direction likely delivers upside. The question is "how low can it go" if things get really rocky meantime?

The backstop is an abomination subjecting permanently Northern Ireland's population to EU regulations but with no MEPs or votes in Council to change those regulations. If anyone suggested that for England there is not a chance we would agree to it. So why should we disenfranchise those in the six counties?

For the DUP being in a kingmaker position is great if they can influence the results. But if they can't prevent themselves from being disenfranchised forever they're not very powerful kingmakers. They should vote no confidence unless it is clear the backstop is dead. If May won't change it, make it clear if the Tories get a new leader by Boxing Day that will drop the backstop then they will restore confidence.

If May's Deal falls ironically her government will be secure as the DUP have confirmed they will still back the government on a VONC so a general election would be unlikely.

However with the huge announcement last night that following the Grieve amendment Letwin and Morgan will propose to the Commons the UK stays in the single market and customs union in the event May's Deal is voted down we now know what the end result is increasingly looking like ie BINO with full free movement and the UK unable to do trade Deals. All the reports suggest there is a Commons majority for the Letwin and Morgan amendment there is not for the Deal and EUref2 or No Deal.

May in my view once that amendment is passed will then effectively adopt that as her backup, warning the ERG and Labour MPs in Leave seats if they do not back her Deal on the second vote they will end up with BINO and the fury of Leave voters crying 'betrayal' will then be unleashed, probably with a new Farage and Bannon party started soon after

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

There is nothing. If the first vote was close, maybe. But it wont be. The deal is dead and brexit dying. All this has been for nothing.

I'm also still trying to come to terms (its early) with the idea of May having a plan B. It just seems so far fetched. If she loses by more than 20 (almost certain) does the idea of a tweak really work? How would anyone know how many votes that tweak will switch?

A shake up would require qualifying the backstop and underlining key parts of the political declaration to show just how detached the UK will be, using language like Canada plus.

I’m convinced that’d unlock about 50 backbench Tory MPs but their trust in May is very low so would need to be several trusted Brexiteers all saying the same thing too.

The question is how much the EU is willing to move on the backstop. Precious little, I’d bet.

If there was movement to be had on the backstop, I think we’d have seen it now. After all, it was the key remaining part of the negotiations back in Autumn. Any MP trying to convince themselves that the problem was that May wasn’t negotiating the backstop hard enough are going to meet reality soon, I think. She clearly did try and push back on it strongly. She didn’t get any further than the UK-wide solution.

I think the EU realises the backstop was a mistake, and has backed both itself and the UK into a corner.

I think they’d be willing to look for practical qualifications on this. As, indeed, they already have.

Surely the only thing they can do that gets this through the HoC (other than cancel the backstop altogether) is allow the right to unilaterally withdraw. Which they will never do.

Another suggestion which I think was touted on a previous thread was give the people of Northern Ireland the right to cancel the backstop via a public vote if it is challenged. However under the various parties obligations to the people’s of the island of Ireland it is hard to imagine how you could impose that on the Republic unless there is also a similar vote from south of the border - ie both sides have to agree. Which obviously removes the unilateral element and gives voters in the republic control over the UKs internal policies.

Tis a very fine mess.

Labour's policy is to make the backstop (aka customs union) permanent. The cheek of them yesterday describing the Legal advice that the backstop potentially trapped the UK in an endless cycle of talks as "the central flaw in May's deal" was something to behold.

Still waiting for somebody to reconcile these two positions.

How Labour are getting away with the nonsense they are spouting is beyond me. I think that explains Corbyns PMQs questions yesterday, he knows their position is nonsense

I wonder whether one could look at this the other way round, and start from the assumption that the HoC is not going to take any steps which involves a timetable of having actually to do anything or be anywhere particular, or cause special annoyance to the voting public, between about 23 December and 3 January. Maybe only after such a calculation can you try to discern the course of events.

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

There is nothing. If the first vote was close, maybe. But it wont be. The deal is dead and brexit dying. All this has been for nothing.

The compensation claims from businesses and other EU countries for abortive costs incurred could be quite hefty...

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

MPs will vote to stay in the single market and customs union, we know that now after the big announcement yesterday Morgan and Letwin will propose that to the House using the Grieve amendment soon after the Deal is voted down, if it is voted down

They have to pass this deal. If they don't we'll end up Remaining. It looks baked in that an initial rejection is necessery to trigger the crisis needed to secure subsequent passage. So the question is what is going to happen between the first and second votes to give cover to those MPs who's national duty it is to vote different ways on the biggest issue of their lives within a few days/weeks. That thing needs to be powerful but also symbolic as the deal isn't going to fundamentally change.

What will that thing be ?

MPs will vote to stay in the single market and customs union, we know that now after the big announcement yesterday Morgan and Letwin will propose that to the House using the Grieve amendment soon after the Deal is voted down, if it is voted down

I know most of us are guilty of repeating ourselves from time to time, but at least most of us try to say things in slightly different ways and from slightly different angles.

Remind me once again, in case I missed it on the previous 50 times you posted this identical paragraph, how do we get to this outcome (even assuming EU agreement) without a Withdrawal agreement, transition period, and several months (at least) of further negotiations?